From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vera v. Gipson

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 2, 2017
No. 16-16420 (9th Cir. Jun. 2, 2017)

Opinion

No. 16-16420

06-02-2017

GUILLERMO VERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONNIE GIPSON, Warden, Defendant-Appellee.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00870-AWI-MJS MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Guillermo Vera, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's order denying his motion for relief from judgment following the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an Eighth Amendment violation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Casey v. Albertson's Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Vera's motion because Vera did not identify any grounds for relief from the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth grounds for relief).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Vera v. Gipson

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 2, 2017
No. 16-16420 (9th Cir. Jun. 2, 2017)
Case details for

Vera v. Gipson

Case Details

Full title:GUILLERMO VERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONNIE GIPSON, Warden…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 2, 2017

Citations

No. 16-16420 (9th Cir. Jun. 2, 2017)